VR has failed

I saw today that the Oculus will be $600.

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

Having sampled VR before I can safely say that it is unsuitable in its current form for gaming, except in very specific (racing games, RTS) circumstances. People will buy it, and they will be disappointed. I was disappointed and I used it for free!

I recently spoke with a friend who gave up a great job to work full time in developing VR movies. I told him he just made the biggest mistake of his life. VR movies, unlike games, have no positive qualities at all.

High Wire will have a very difficult time with their game being VR only, let alone making it be better than a non-VR version. It's certainly possible, but nobody is going to play it. When I joked that VR Gran Turismo is needed to get VR off the ground… that's actually kind of not a joke anymore. That's literally the only way you are going to get these headsets into the hands of millions and have something quality to play on them.

Why aren't all TV shows shot in 3D and shown on 3D TVs in every household? Same reason VR will never take off. Even though both are awesome.

locked

2570 views

I saw today that the Oculus will be $600.

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

Having sampled VR before I can safely say that it is unsuitable in its current form for gaming, except in very specific (racing games, RTS) circumstances. People will buy it, and they will be disappointed. I was disappointed and I used it for free!

I didn't realize how much I missed that old Cody Miller pessimism, it's like someone not looking and running into a low doorway...

I recently spoke with a friend who gave up a great job to work full time in developing VR movies. I told him he just made the biggest mistake of his life. VR movies, unlike games, have no positive qualities at all.

then I got to this part and found I don't miss the old Cody Miller absolutism or the old Cody Miller "my unusual and unexplained opinions are totally relevant to how things work and how people act" attitude.

High Wire will have a very difficult time with their game being VR only, let alone making it be better than a non-VR version. It's certainly possible, but nobody is going to play it. When I joked that VR Gran Turismo is needed to get VR off the ground… that's actually kind of not a joke anymore. That's literally the only way you are going to get these headsets into the hands of millions and have something quality to play on them.

Why aren't all TV shows shot in 3D and shown on 3D TVs in every household? Same reason VR will never take off. Even though both are awesome.

Also you're mixing up 3D viewing and virtual reality, at least in some parts of the post. You're slipping, man. See you in another few months probably.

locked

2473 views

Gear VR $99

Been playing with it for a few weeks now and it is incredible. "Gaming" on it is very limited for now but the possibilities and potential you can sense from using it are overwhelming.

Oculus developed it alongside Samsung and it uses the oculus market.

There is still the psvr and HTCs headset so we will see where they put the price point and if the entry to PC based VR gets cheaper we may see mainstream vr.

For now I'll stick to snapping my phone into the gear and goofing around in mobile VR which is a far cry from pc powered, but still amazing

locked

2526 views

I'm not sure the high price is what might kill Oculus. It's a new gadget, they're always expensive at first. Certain early adopters will buy it, and later on the stuff gets cheaper. What I think would be more likely to kill it is a lack of compelling content - if there's nothing interesting to use it for, it won't sell at any price.

Sort of on topic and sort of not: I've seen several movies in 3D now, and there has been only one where I didn't think that the 3D made things noticeably worse. Oddly, it was Jurassic Park. Which, of the 3D films I've seen, is the only one that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. I can accept that theoretically 3D can be used to great effect, but mostly it just seems to be used to make otherwise-OK 2D movies hard to see.

locked

2429 views

Sort of on topic and sort of not: I've seen several movies in 3D now, and there has been only one where I didn't think that the 3D made things noticeably worse. Oddly, it was Jurassic Park. Which, of the 3D films I've seen, is the only one that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. I can accept that theoretically 3D can be used to great effect, but mostly it just seems to be used to make otherwise-OK 2D movies hard to see.

Definitely off topic, but I don't care: I saw star wars twice in 2D, then I saw it in an iMax theater in 3D... it was 5 times better.

locked

2426 views

Until Avatar, 3D in films was purely a gimmick, and it was treated as such. Objects were thrown at the viewer for no reason, things flying past your face, all just to scare or surprise you because WOW 3D! It sucked.

Then Avatar actually used 3D simply to enhance the image, and otherwise filmed the world like a normal movie. It was a more compelling window into the fictional universe. Awesome.

And then other shitty movies saw how much money Avatar made, and they forced 3D down the throats of their productions on people who did not understand how to make it work. Sometimes (clash of titans, GI Joe) they added the 3D as a special effect in post production rather that shooting in 3D to begin with, and the effect is terrible. It's like the backgrounds from the sega genesis. Several flat layers designed to appear at different distances. Awful.

Only now (as in, 2015+) do I feel like film finally has a handle on how to make a compelling narrative in 3D without making the 3D distracting or detrimental to the story. Star Wars was awesome in 3D. The Jungle Book appears to be the best 3D ever made. Other films are being produced that view 3D as a medium rather than a gimmick.

The future of films is coming, and it's 3D. But it certainly took a very, very long time to get there. VR is going to be on a similar and longer path, as you simply won't be able to outfit every seat in a theater with a VR headset (nor would you need to, as wearing a headset is tantamount to putting your head inside an infinite theater with only one seat), and finding a good business model for it will be hard.

locked

2430 views

Several flat layers designed to appear at different distances. Awful.

I saw one of the Resident Evil films in 3D and it was exactly like that. It just looked like everything was a cardboard cutout. I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it was acceptable.

locked

2342 views

Several flat layers designed to appear at different distances. Awful.

I saw one of the Resident Evil films in 3D and it was exactly like that. It just looked like everything was a cardboard cutout. I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it was acceptable.

The people with the money saw a report that said 3D films made more money, so they demanded 3D. I'm sure the people actually making the movie thought it was a horrible idea, but F it; it's not their money.

locked

2348 views

Sort of on topic and sort of not: I've seen several movies in 3D now, and there has been only one where I didn't think that the 3D made things noticeably worse. Oddly, it was Jurassic Park. Which, of the 3D films I've seen, is the only one that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. I can accept that theoretically 3D can be used to great effect, but mostly it just seems to be used to make otherwise-OK 2D movies hard to see.

Avatar in 3D is still the only 3D film I wasn't disappointed with.

locked

2343 views

Agreed. Avatar in 3D in theater was perhaps the one time where I felt it was all worth it. I made it a point to see most movies in 3D for a while after that but nothing else came close. Eventually, within the past two years I guess, I've gone back to saving a bit of money and getting a bit better image quality by seeing everything in 2D...

locked

2417 views

Avatar in 3D is still the only 3D film I wasn't disappointed with.

This is very surprising. Prometheus in 3D was significantly better. Any film that was animated with computers such as a pixar / dreamworks feature is better in 3D.

I think 3D would be even better for straight up dramas with no spectacle. The intimacy of seeing a 3D face that looks so real you can touch is pretty profound when it comes to reading and responding to the emotions of a character.

Remember how creepy Hannibal Lecter was? What if he looked straight at you like he does in silence of the lambs, but also came off the screen invading your personal space even more?

For me, 3D can be just as much a part of film as color if you think about it as just another aspect of your image.

locked

2344 views

Do they usually compensate projection intensity over there?

locked

2355 views

Avatar in 3D is still the only 3D film I wasn't disappointed with.

This is very surprising. Prometheus in 3D was significantly better. Any film that was animated with computers such as a pixar / dreamworks feature is better in 3D.

I think 3D would be even better for straight up dramas with no spectacle. The intimacy of seeing a 3D face that looks so real you can touch is pretty profound when it comes to reading and responding to the emotions of a character.

Remember how creepy Hannibal Lecter was? What if he looked straight at you like he does in silence of the lambs, but also came off the screen invading your personal space even more?

For me, 3D can be just as much a part of film as color if you think about it as just another aspect of your image.

Until 3D movies don't require extra gear (gear which may be scratched by the people who wore it before you did, or which doesn't fit you perfectly, or which shows you blurry edges of the screen around the parts that are actually covered by the lenses, or a half-dozen other potential problems with existing throwaway glasses), 3D movies will NEVER be as immersive as 2D movies that require no extra gear.

locked

2338 views

- No text -

locked

2383 views

Would you pay $600 for a kick-ass TV? I mean, I wouldn't, but it isn't that much more expensive than some top-notch TVs out there.

locked

2333 views

It's quite a bit cheaper than a lot of top tier TVs out there.

locked

2364 views

- No text -

locked

2345 views

My main problem with 3D is that while it looks sort of 3D, it also looks fake because the focus doesn't adjust as you look around the screen. When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel. It's no wonder 3D causes headaches in some people.

locked

2410 views

My main problem with 3D is that while it looks sort of 3D, it also looks fake because the focus doesn't adjust as you look around the screen. When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel. It's no wonder 3D causes headaches in some people.

The headaches are typically because of bad 3D. The Warcraft trailer before Star Wars made my eyes and head explode for example, and I normally do not experience discomfort in 3D.

The issue is with too much depth. You have two images on the screen, so imagine a ball. It will be on the screen in two places, separated a bit. If the ball is on the plane of the screen in the 3D space, then the balls will overlap. If it is off the screen towards you, then they will separate with the left eye ball on the right, and the right eye ball on the left. Thus you have to cross your eyes when you focus on them. This happens normally when you focus on close objects; your eyes cross to converge on them.

Behind the screen is a different story. In reality when you focus on something far away, it is at infinity, so your eyes just look out parallel to each other. But on the screen, objects behind the screen have the left eye on the left and the right eye on the right. Thus, you need to do the opposite of eye crossing. Imagine trying to point your right eye at your right ear, and your left eye at your left ear. Both eyes move outward. This is not something you ever do, and it's uncomfortable.

Your eyes are about 4 inches apart, so if anything has more depth than the two images being 4 inches apart, your eyes have to look out in opposite directions. Too much of this, or depth that is too far will hurt a lot.

This can be managed if you shoot and cut it properly.

locked

2402 views

My main problem with 3D is that while it looks sort of 3D, it also looks fake because the focus doesn't adjust as you look around the screen. When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel. It's no wonder 3D causes headaches in some people.

SO MUCH THIS ^^^

This is what bothered me most about Avatar. I have since trained myself to only look where the camera is focused.

locked

2383 views

When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel.

Don't be a rebel. Look where you are being told to look :-)

locked

2314 views

- No text -

locked

2273 views

VR definitely has an uphill battle ahead of it, and I'm not sure it'll ever have the install base of an Xbox or Playstation console (in the foreseeable future anyway).

But VR offers a truly amazing experience. Yes, there's probably going to be a lot of crap to wade through. But there's going to be a lot of amazing things to come from it, too.

I listened to a recent GameInformer Podcast with Jason Rubin talking about VR. It's a really interesting listen, and it goes a long way to show how excited a lot of developers are for VR. He compared it to videogames in the late 80s and early 90s. There weren't any established rules for making videogames; it was one giant experiment with developers just trying random, crazy things and seeing what worked. VR is the same way right now. No, we don't yet know how to make more traditional games (like a FPS) work really well in VR, especially without making people sick. I don't think that can't be overcome, though, and a lot of really intelligent, really passionate people are really excited about the technology, and that's a good sign.

I don't think the $600 price point is death knell you think it is. We always knew it was going to be expensive (I'm frankly surprised by how surprised people seem to be that it's $600. A lot of people have been throwing around the $300-$400ish price point with no basis, and we were straight up told it would be more expensive than we might be anticipating). Let's face it; if you have a PC that meets the recommended requirements for VR, $600 isn't that much extra money after building that PC. Hell the GPU required is at least half of that.

I think it depends on how good the Playstation VR is, and at what price it arrives. Its a double edged sword, as I think hardcore PC players are more likely to be interested in VR, but there are more people with PS4s than with the PC required to run VR. If Playstation VR hits the right price point, I could see it being adopted by more people than the Oculus.

We'll see. I'm still optimistic.

locked

2396 views

- No text -

locked

2423 views

I'm still holding out hope for the Virtual Boy.

locked

2431 views

- No text -

locked

2383 views

Sega Activator all the way. End of discussion.

(God, does anybody even remember that, btw?)

locked

2436 views

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

I couldn't make it past this sentence. Just try to parse that. You cannot and remain sane.

locked

2416 views

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

I couldn't make it past this sentence. Just try to parse that. You cannot and remain sane.

It's parsable, just a little ambiguous. It could mean that it won't take off in the near future (with the "never" being intersected with the finite time bounds of "near future"), but it could also mean that there will never be a time for which VR will take off in the near future, which is to say that VR will never take off.

locked

2412 views

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

I couldn't make it past this sentence. Just try to parse that. You cannot and remain sane.

It's parsable, just a little ambiguous. It could mean that it won't take off in the near future (with the "never" being intersected with the finite time bounds of "near future"), but it could also mean that there will never be a time for which VR will take off in the near future, which is to say that VR will never take off.

You can't bound an absolute like that. Never means never, not ever.

What you are saying he actually meant would be the same as saying "VR will NOT take off in the near future."

That, of course, is not nearly enough hyperbole for Cody, which is why he didn't say it that way. He wants all the impact of "never" without any of the commitment, so he added "in the near future" as a hedge against him being wrong if or when VR does improve, get cheaper, and become more popular, which it could conceivably do, with or without the arbitrary constraints of what Cody might vaguely mean by "in the near future".

For me, I have to say I never had much interest in the Oculus Rift, at least not in current form, and at $600 plus PC, Windows and 970 graphics card, I have even less. I'd suppose the best way to popularize this would be to bundle it with a console and subsidize it. Whether the failure of Kinect and Move mean it is not possible to do this, or that motion controls were just the wrong choice of a new peripheral to push, I don't know. There is something to the position that consoles work as a cheap and popular vector for gaming because it comes with everything you need except a TV, which is something everyone in the target market has.

The extent to which console makers could push it as a new display option really depends on how much more work it takes to develop games that really utilize it, and how easy it is to make games developed for it work on ordinary displays-- which is basically the same question Kinect and Move faced-- how do they use the peripheral as a core component and not just a gimmick, while making sure those development costs aren't lost if the use of the peripheral doesn't stick (or if the console maker stops bundling it).

This pricing just means that this edition of the Rift is not going to be mainstream. Whether or not Oculus ever thought it could be is debatable. Whether AAA PC gaming even is at this point is truly mainstream is debatable, and VR exists on the fringe of that and probably will for the foreseeable future. One estimate I've seen suggests that in 2015 something fewer than 35 million GPU cards were sold, of which about 5-10% of are "high end", which includes cards less capable than the 970, which was only introduced in late 2014, and its AMD equivalent, the 290, a bit later.

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2016/01/vr-sales-data-we-can-count-on/

The author concludes that the installed base of VR-capable cards next year starts at 3 million. An attach rate of 10% for VR displays against that would mean 300K is the size of your addressable audience for VR games, but split among different vendors-- not all Oculus.

In fact, it may simply be that $600 is too cheap, that they would not sell significantly fewer of these at a higher price point, and they are starving themselves of cash flow. If they plan on using Facebook's resources to subsidize the hardware, then $600 is too high to popularize the unit.

I get sort of a kick out of the perception that the PC gaming space, right now in terms of size and importance, has the same sort of relationship with console gaming that Mac gaming (to the extent such a thing even exists) has typically had with PC gaming. The difference, of course, is that PCs for the express purpose of gaming still exist and will continue to do so, whereas arguably that never existed under any stripe of Mac OS. In terms of how high a priority it is as a development target for many big developers, though... there's something similar there when you see high profile games coming out late and in bad shape, or in many cases, not ever. It's interesting-- and VR is the bleeding edge of that.

Best take I've seen so far on the Rift pricing came from Total Biscuit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAwXhbYM-UE

locked

2455 views

Price is a small part of it.

If VR were completely killer, and just flat out awesome, then a high price tag wouldn't mean much. People would buy it, love it, rave about it, and eventually the tech will get cheaper.

But it is very lacking right now. So even if it were cheap and got in to the hands of everyone, people would play it, realize it's not generally great, and write it off.

The genres where it kicks ass are genres without much wide appeal, so even though TIE fighter or GT on Oculus would rock so hard, the market isn't going to be wide enough. There's only so many people who are going to buy a capable PC, steering wheel, and a headset for a racing game.

locked

2336 views

Price is a small part of it.

If VR were completely killer, and just flat out awesome, then a high price tag wouldn't mean much. People would buy it, love it, rave about it, and eventually the tech will get cheaper.

Ummm.. I hate to brake it to you. But there are a LOT of things that I find "completely killer and flat out awesome" that I would love to have, but there is this thing called a high price tag.

Just because something is awesome doesn't mean people will throw money at it.

locked

2304 views

Price is a small part of it.

If VR were completely killer, and just flat out awesome, then a high price tag wouldn't mean much. People would buy it, love it, rave about it, and eventually the tech will get cheaper.

Ummm.. I hate to brake it to you. But there are a LOT of things that I find "completely killer and flat out awesome" that I would love to have, but there is this thing called a high price tag.

Heh, that's what I was going to say. It is flat out awesome, people are loving it and raving it about it (those that have been lucky enough to try it).

Just because something is awesome doesn't mean people will throw money at it.

Otherwise I'd be driving a Viper rather than a Mustang.

locked

2311 views

All of this makes perfect sense.

I don't even remember what opinions I had before reading this post.

locked

2355 views

Is that a secret logic loop to confuse robots?

locked

2378 views

I wouldn't write off VR in general just yet. It's too early to complain about the lack of interesting games. VR brings a major set of new challenges and new possibilities for Devs to figure out. There are obvious cases for VR (racing or flight games, anything cockpit-based) but give creative people time and they will do amazing things with new technology. Early hands-on impressions of Golum sound very interesting... like Highwire has taken a big step in figuring out ways to control a character in VR without walking all over your living room.

Commercially, I'm sceptical about the Rift's chances. $600 US is a hefty price tag (that's now $850 for us here in Canada!!!). Keep in mind that running the Oculus will also require a seriously powerful PC. Comparisons to iPad pricing don't hold water. People spend $600 on an iPad because there are already thousands of games/apps available, and people tell themselves they'll use the device daily for all sorts of different things (whether they end up doing so or not). Right now, the Rift has 1 primary draw: games. But the potential is there for much more.

Looking at VR in general, I am also sceptical about mass-market saturation. I'm really excited about the possibilities of VR, but I don't see myself ever using it. I simply can't be that cut-off from my surroundings. I have a hard enough time using my Astro A50s because they hinder my awareness of my surroundings too much. With my 2-year-old here with me, using a VR headset feels downright irresponsible, even while she's sleeping. I know my situation doesn't apply to everyone, but it might apply to enough of the market to prevent high sales, even at a lower price point. And developers need a huge install base before they invest in a platform, because games are so expensive to make.

locked

2397 views

I saw one neat article or comment the other day that maybe, with the right equipment and applications, VR technology might herald the return of the video arcade. Most people (currently) don't have the computing power or money to really invest in VR and using it in a home can be a bit irresponsible, as you say. But in a (relatively!) safe setting with high end equipment and a fairly minimal pay in would let you experience some amazing games without all the short term hassle and expense.

locked

2430 views

I wouldn't write off VR in general just yet. It's too early to complain about the lack of interesting games. VR brings a major set of new challenges and new possibilities for Devs to figure out. There are obvious cases for VR (racing or flight games, anything cockpit-based) but give creative people time and they will do amazing things with new technology. Early hands-on impressions of Golum sound very interesting... like Highwire has taken a big step in figuring out ways to control a character in VR without walking all over your living room.

Just like motion controls, current VR tech has fundamental limitations. Motion controls and touch screens still have not become commonplace in complex, mainstream AAA games, even though there are "lots of possibilities there". You can control a character with motion controls… but is it really necessary or optimal? So while you CAN control a character in VR, is it really the best way to?

Whenever people pull the 'wait and see' or 'give it time' card it is never a good sign. Did anybody say that when Nintendo put an analog stick on a controller? No because it was instantly apparent why that was cool. Now all controllers have them. Did anybody say that when Wolfenstien 3D came out? No because it was instantly apparent that FPS was awesome. And now it's one of the biggest genres.

These things got better, but when they came out nobody had to make excuses. Dev kits have been out for a really long time. We should have a killer app / know what works by now. In my opinion, the tech is only there for a very narrow niche of games. In three or 4 years time, I think that will be the common view as well!

locked

2366 views

Whenever people pull the 'wait and see' or 'give it time' card it is never a good sign. Did anybody say that when Nintendo put an analog stick on a controller? No because it was instantly apparent why that was cool. Now all controllers have them. Did anybody say that when Wolfenstien 3D came out? No because it was instantly apparent that FPS was awesome. And now it's one of the biggest genres.

Yeah, the analog stick was there, but how many games were there initially that struggled to make great use of it in fully 3D environments? How many console FPS games sucked (with people saying they would never work; sound familiar?) until Halo nailed the controls?

All it takes is that one game to nail it and find the fix for the problem. It could end up being something like Halo, where they just figure it out and make it work, or it could be that VR just won't have conventional games. Like mobile, trying to make a traditional game control well on a touch screen always ends up pretty half-assed with a controller basically just being placed over the screen. Games that are designed from the ground up as mobile games work better and are more intuitive. Maybe VR ends up like that, and we'll never play Destiny in VR. I'm not convinced that means VR is destined to fail though.

locked

2339 views

Yeah, the analog stick was there, but how many games were there initially that struggled to make great use of it in fully 3D environments?

Zero. Mario 64 nailed it immediately.

How many console FPS games sucked (with people saying they would never work; sound familiar?) until Halo nailed the controls?

All of them sucked… until we got DUAL ANALOG STICKS. And then they were immediately awesome.

All it takes is that one game to nail it and find the fix for the problem.

Halo and Mario 64 were both launch games.

Games that are designed from the ground up as mobile games work better and are more intuitive. Maybe VR ends up like that, and we'll never play Destiny in VR. I'm not convinced that means VR is destined to fail though.

Mobile is a bad example, because gaming on mobile is just awful. Even the games that are designed from the start to be mobile games, lack complexity or are better played with a mouse or something.

locked

2348 views

Halo and Mario 64 were both launch games.

Yes, they were. And they were followed up by many other games that failed to control even half as well using the same technology.

Mobile is a bad example, because gaming on mobile is just awful. Even the games that are designed from the start to be mobile games, lack complexity or are better played with a mouse or something.

I can't really argue with that. But the point is that you can design for medium and have a good experience, but trying to just use the same controls we're used to might not be the way to go about it.

locked

2359 views

Mobile is a bad example, because gaming on mobile is just awful. Even the games that are designed from the start to be mobile games, lack complexity or are better played with a mouse or something.

You apparently have never played Magic Touch. It's a game that uses touch screens in a way that no other device input would allow. And it's a lot of fun. Simple fun.

locked

2367 views

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3zt7ul/i_am_palmer_luckey_founder_of_oculus_and_designer/

locked

2444 views

Disregarding that second sentence which makes no sense, you can't possibly suggest that a $600 price tag is killing VR. That's a minor thing compared to the price of the system required to run it.

Would I buy a $600 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $200 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $20 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

No, I'm afraid the price of everything *else* is keeping it a fringe product, not its price itself.

EDIT: I'm going a little hard here, but meh.

locked

2328 views

As someone with absolutely zero interest in VR, I'm glad that these paywalls exist to keep me from buying it.

locked

2315 views

- No text -

locked

2208 views

Would I buy a $600 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $200 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $20 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

I think you'll find a large portion of PC gamers who already have PCs able to run it, like myself, but would very willingly pay $100 or less for a headset. It was never going to be that cheap . . . but there is definitely a market that already has high end PCs.

locked

2330 views

Would I buy a $600 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $200 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

Would I buy a $20 VR headset? Fuck no, cause I wouldn't buy the $1500 computer I would need to run it.

I think you'll find a large portion of PC gamers who already have PCs able to run it, like myself, but would very willingly pay $100 or less for a headset. It was never going to be that cheap . . . but there is definitely a market that already has high end PCs.

Any Confirmation about Macintosh support? Because now a days that is pretty important.

locked

2334 views

- No text -

locked

2371 views

I have a beefy iMac. True I could just switch over to bootcamp but some people don't have that.

locked

2388 views

I have a beefy iMac. True I could just switch over to bootcamp but some people don't have that.

Not a powerful enough GPU. Look at the minimum specs listed by Oculus. The only mac that can have have anything supported would be a pre trash can mac pro. Even the trash can macs have cards that are for compositing / CAD and not games.

locked

2423 views

- No text -

locked

2301 views

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying it isn't the sole problem.

locked

2342 views

- No text -

locked

2318 views

[image]

- Cody while typing that.

locked

2359 views

i think that's the elephant in the room here

locked

2293 views

Disclaimer: Have an Oculus DK2

I saw today that the Oculus will be $600.

VR will now officially never take off in the near future.

What the hell does "officially" mean to you? When you double down on some poorly supported theory of yours, it's now official? Interesting...

Having sampled VR before I can safely say that it is unsuitable in its current form for gaming, except in very specific (racing games, RTS) circumstances. People will buy it, and they will be disappointed. I was disappointed and I used it for free!

There is definitely a disconnect between the normal experiences in games and what a proper VR experience will be. It's a very exciting time to be a dev and to figure out how best to do this.

I recently spoke with a friend who gave up a great job to work full time in developing VR movies. I told him he just made the biggest mistake of his life. VR movies, unlike games, have no positive qualities at all.

High Wire will have a very difficult time with their game being VR only, let alone making it be better than a non-VR version. It's certainly possible, but nobody is going to play it. When I joked that VR Gran Turismo is needed to get VR off the ground… that's actually kind of not a joke anymore. That's literally the only way you are going to get these headsets into the hands of millions and have something quality to play on them.

Why aren't all TV shows shot in 3D and shown on 3D TVs in every household? Same reason VR will never take off. Even though both are awesome.

You're really into reductive arguments comparing drastically different industries/audiences. I am not into the idea of 3D movies, however even my in-laws dropped their jaws when experiencing the most basic demos running on a freaking laptop of all things. Can't wait to show them on the new PC I built for this purpose.

You're occasionally right about some things, that by no means makes you sound any less silly when you throw out absolute nonsense like this.

locked

2301 views

- No text -

locked

2326 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

VR has failed (Gaming)

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

3D in films

3D in films

3D in films

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

My problem with 3D movies is how dark they all look here

VR has failed

Good point.

You know, the Rift does all of that pretty well

You know, the Rift does all of that pretty well

same here.

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Moral of the story

My ADD says otherwise

Agree to disagree.

Already?! Glad I didn't buy...

VR has failed

So that's what Cody meant. :p

You're Wrong.

VR has failed

VR has failed

Maybe, Maybe Not, but the Rift will not be mainstream

Maybe, Maybe Not, but the Rift will not be mainstream

Maybe, Maybe Not, but the Rift will not be mainstream

Maybe, Maybe Not, but the Rift will not be mainstream

Maybe, Maybe Not, but the Rift will not be mainstream

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

VR has failed

Palmer Luckey AMA on Reddit.

Way off.

Way off.

Arguably VR's greatest feature.

I don't know

I don't know

lol

That wasn't a joke...

That wasn't a joke...

ayyyyup.

I don't know

Why do you 'get off' from making polarizing statements?

"It is a failure. Should've listened to me!" - Cody on forum

so does it have Mario tennis?

Wrapping my head around "VR Has Failed" makes my head hurt

Thanks for the heads up!